Nitik Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46671 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2024 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Nitik Kumar S/o Ajit Singh @ Ajit Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Barahi, P.S.- Riga, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2025 Heard Mr.Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 02.05.2025 in connection with Riga P.S. Case No. 246 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 21.07.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS Act.
3. As per prosecution case, four miscreants on their motorcycle dashed the motorcycle of the informant and one of them gave a knife blow in the abdomen of the informant, who somehow saved himself. The second blow of knife hit on the right side of neck of the informant, causing injury to him. The miscreants snatched the Pulsar motorcycle, mobile phone, gold chain worth Rs. 1.5 lac and cash of Rs. 22,000/- from the
2/4 informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. In fact the petitioner is not named in the FIR.
The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of apprehended co-accused persons, namely, Harshvardhan Jha, Shivam Kumar @ Chhotu, Krishna Kumar and Harsh Kumar and except the confessional statement of coaccused persons, no other cogent material has come during investigation against the petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution and co-accused persons, namely, Harshvardhan Jha and Krishna Kumar, who have disclosed the name of the petitioner, have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 22.03.2025 and 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos.
90109 of 2024 and 6637 of 2025 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean antecedent, petitioner is not named in the FIR, name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused persons and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Sitamarhi in connection with Riga P.S. Case No.
246 of 2024, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T